@Helcio Fernandes,

Actually, I reflected upon this question recently and concluded the same thing (only as an adjective, that is).

Oh look, a troll.

@Warsaw Will,

Ah, I forgot about numerical S-V agreement. And that is only if you see the eggs as a single unit, I just don't see 'five eggs' as being a unit. However, just adding something makes it a little clearer:

"Five eggs is too many [to use]"
"Five eggs are too many [to use]"

Both sound rather fine to my ear with the addendum above.

I would have to agree with Tim33 on the first part. But I must ask why would person A ask 'how many' and then switch to saying 'too much'? On the second part, 'Five eggs are too many' is correct because of subject-verb agreement. Because the subject is plural, the verb is plural.

*Remove the 'are'.

@Really??

We're are not ignorant of the rules of English, but the question is whether the word 'text' should follow the conjugation of regular verbs or irregular verbs.

@Captain Typo,

First, Lego's demands that people use Lego bricks is ignorant of the fact that only a small fraction of the pieces are, in fact, bricks. There is an array of pieces that does not include the iconic brick. There is a possibility for Lego pieces.

Even so, I will refuse to accept what they have prescribed.

Additionally, to say that,

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not everyone is entitled to their own facts."

is ludicrous considering the subject being English because of how it, and other languages, evolve. You still don't speak Anglo-Saxon do you? Or do you still you use thee, thou, thy, and thine? Or the noun suffixes that are attached when matched with certain verbs?

If you believe the rules of stranding prepositions and splitting the infinitive, then you are only following prescriptions and are unable to discern the Germanic roots of the English language.

Whoops, the fallacy that if only a few people know or believe in something, then it is right.

Jayles is just stating a fallacy, the appeal to popularity, yet he makes another fallacy of his own, one that I call the appeal to obscurity, the fallacy that it is known by a few that it is right.

@AnWulf

Why do have the need to bash and get rid of Latin and French words? Wouldn't that leave English bereft of its musicality. I don't care if you wish to add Anglo-Saxon (Old English) words into modern English. I have no problem with that whatsoever, but to completely eradicate Latin and French words from the vocabulary like some kind of lexical holocaust is abhorrent. I mean, what that leave us with in terms of words. If what you say is true, we have obtained 28,000 Latin/French words, but there could be more. Under your rules, all those words not fitting the one to two syllabic requirement would be vaporized. Preferably, I like to use big words and small words. Whatever happens to be on my vocabulary sheet, I'll use it.

As for laughing at us who use Latin and French words, I would say we could, and should, laugh at you for use of Anglo-Saxon spelling and words. It is ridiculous honestly and slightly frustrating (I have to decipher what you're trying to say—which makes it more advantageous for me just to ignore or skip over what you say most of the time). So try to stop with the condescension.